Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We should have followed Joseph Stiglitz's advice and not bailed out any of the bad banks.

They all collapse, the debts are gone, a couple of good banks are left, end of problem.

dietrich wrote:At least in the US, it does all mostly go back to lending.



What the American voters need to do is hold Congress accountable. Which, historically, we don't do. Unless it's an incumbent caught up in a scandal. I am definitely more of a 'free market' than 'regulation' person. However, some regulation is necessary. 1) it needs to prevent monopolies, which have a long-term negative effect on prices but also creates the 'too big to let fail' syndrome which goes against 'free market' and 2) punish those who knowingly do wrong things. White collar crime isn't always obvious, but depleting someone's retirement savings so that you made a quick buck on the stock market is just as much a crime as robbing them of their savings at gunpoint.

Agreed. You can argue about the causes of the recession, about the Iraq war, but the Madoff and other swindler scandals popping up are clearly at the feet of their auditors and the SEC. Bush was in charge of the SEC. That really was Bush's fault.

Does the US have something akin to the UK's Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Essentially an independantbody set up to prevent monopolies being formed by mergers, which are artificial and bad for the market?

Not separate, but its enforced through the Sherman Act.

barlio wrote:As you are aware PM Brown paid a visit to President Obama last week. I heard that he brought a rather thoughtful gift for the Obamas, but returned with 25 dvds that he couldn't view and the bust of Winston Churchil. What has the coverage of this been like, and what impressions have you gathered from this regarding the future relationship the US and UK?

I admit to being thoroughly biased in my opinions regarding Gordon brown so take this as you will.

The most common press description of the reaction of Obama to Brown was "snubbed".

it appears to many Britons that Gordon Browns economic strategy is not working. the Foreign office has made protest when varuious German and French officials appeared to criticise the policy. It appears to me at least that due to ther tonal nature of Browns visit he wasnted Obama to reaffirm his status as the financial genius New Labouir wants people to believe he is.

This status comes from Gordon Browns 'successfull' tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer throughout Tony Blairs term as prime Minsiter. So you know the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the minister in charge of the budget and the economic policy. In this role his duty is not under authority of the Prime Minister at least until the Budget is revealed in parliament. It is concisdered the most important cabinet position and the Chancellor resides in 11 Downing street right next door to the PM.

In my opinion Brown was a disaster as Chancellor, he sold our gold reserves for a start, at a time when gold was cheap, to buy a round of tax cuts for the 2001 general election. He was made many mistakes since. Since he was appointed Prime Minister he wants to prove himself to be a great leader using the same spin techniques as Tony Blair. However the techniques are getting tired so he has to rely on his repuation as the economic mastermind spin painted him to be, because he is proving lacklustre as a leader.
Brown made a large gamble with the economy by cutting taxation and investing in failing banks in order to keep the float high. If he brazens it out so much the better but the odds on the maths are not good. Borrowing is up to compensate so the national debt is soaring.

So after the French and the germans made it clear what they thought of the strategy Brown tried to adopt Obama into his economic vision. Obama quite wisely will have nothing to do with it, he also sees Brown as a spent force unlikley to win re-election in under two years time.

If you want to judge Obamas reactions the the UK wait until he meets David Cameron, the man most likely to be the next Prime Minister. hThis carries its own problems most notably the Conservative party has changed so much it is a mirror image of New Labour. This aside he is very likely to be PM and is ultimately the man with whome to deal for 2-6 years of Obamas time in the White House, long term predictions allowing.
When this meeting takes place is anyones guess. I suspect Obama will wait as he has been very careful not to tip his hand regarding his policies and that has kept a lot of people guessing as to his actual agendas in the USA and elsewhere. He has no rsason to support Gordon Brown and sonsiders any debt between the Uk and the USA over support for Iraq to have expired with the Bush presidency. Obama is an enigma not to be revealed for as cheap a character as Gordon Brown, on aside his detachment is I think why China is trying to sniff him out playing dodg'ems with warships so recently.

In my opinion the entire 'New Labour' project ran out of steam fairly early. They made lots of bad policies and spun it all to make it sound good. It wasn't all Gordo's fault but the chickens have come home to roost on his watch.

I'm not saying I would vote Conservative. Like you I think they have changed so much they have almost become New New Labour. Plus lots of the stuff Labour did, like PFI, is exactly the kind of stuff the Tories would do.

Essentially you can't base an economy on lending. Unless you are lending to others who actually make something or do some service which makes life legitimately better. If you do base an economy on lending, eventually you have to pay it back - hence recession. The problem is the more you borrow the more money banks make (via the interest), don't forget as well as the individuals borrowing, our government is borrowing. Even when a bank goes under for having it's debts called in, it's owners have already made their money and aren't liable for your loses. Essentially Banks should be regulated more than they are - if we want inflation and recessions to not happen. A business can function perfectly well in debt, burrowing to invest in resources - but I don't know if it works so well when a country does it.

Orlanth wrote:
I admit to being thoroughly biased in my opinions regarding Gordon brown so take this as you will.

The most common press description of the reaction of Obama to Brown was "snubbed".

Not quite. The right wing press described it as "snubbed", the left wing generally viewed it quite favourably.

Not least for the 19 or so standing ovations he got during his speech.


You'll notice the American embassy also quickly put out statements denying any snub and emphasising the "special relationship" as being as strong as usual.

If you want to judge Obamas reactions the the UK wait until he meets David Cameron, the man most likely to be the next Prime Minister. hThis carries its own problems most notably the Conservative party has changed so much it is a mirror image of New Labour. This aside he is very likely to be PM and is ultimately the man with whome to deal for 2-6 years of Obamas time in the White House, long term predictions allowing.
When this meeting takes place is anyones guess. I suspect Obama will wait as he has been very careful not to tip his hand regarding his policies and that has kept a lot of people guessing as to his actual agendas in the USA and elsewhere. He has no rsason to support Gordon Brown and sonsiders any debt between the Uk and the USA over support for Iraq to have expired with the Bush presidency. Obama is an enigma not to be revealed for as cheap a character as Gordon Brown, on aside his detachment is I think why China is trying to sniff him out playing dodg'ems with warships so recently.

That's an interesting take.

Like the fact that they've already met.

I very much doubt that Obama, or indeed pretty much any Democrat President will have many dealings with the Cons.. Aside from the fact that the tories have spent the last decade wandering around without any sense of purpose or direction, they've never been quite forgiven for the stupid role some of the party tried to play in Bush seniors campaign against Clinton. When Clinton won Major had to do some serious grovelling to even try and keep any influence.

Blair and Clinton got on like a house on fire, and despite Cherie's best efforts, it seems that Blair and Lil' Bush are genuine friends as well.

I don't think Brown will ever be popular in the USA-- not charismatic enough-- but Blair will back him, or more pertinently the Labour Party over Cameron and his bunch of toffs and second chancers every time. And, politically at leas, Blair's words hold weight in Washington.

Cameron? Next Prime Minister?

Somehow I doubt it. The Middle Class are divided, the Working Class don't trust him (just another over privileged Tory at the end of the day).

I reckon Labour will sneak another term, Cameron will get booted out (which the Tories ALWAYS do when they lose.) and things will continue.

But considering Daveyboy is yet to come up with anything resembling a workable policy, and his would be cabinet aren't pulling up the slack either.

reds8n wrote:
Not least for the 19 or so standing ovations he got during his speech.

Out of a sense of diplomatic conduct anyone invited to addres a joint session is hardly going to be booed.

reds8n wrote:
You'll notice the American embassy also quickly put out statements denying any snub and emphasising the "special relationship" as being as strong as usual.

Likewise, but the cooling was noticed by the press nonetheless.

reds8n wrote:
That's an interesting take.

Like the fact that they've already met.

Not truly relevant, Obama wasnt president then, uust as Obama's meetings with Brown prior to his election are not relevant. You play the diplomatic game.

reds8n wrote:
I very much doubt that Obama, or indeed pretty much any Democrat President will have many dealings with the Cons.

Diplomacy is diplomacy, so long as the Uk has a permenant veto in the UN security council and membership of the G8 the Prime Minister will always be worth talking to.

reds8n wrote:
Aside from the fact that the tories have spent the last decade wandering around without any sense of purpose or direction

You might not have realised, but the Europeans and Washington does: Tony Blair through media imbalance took Tory party policy and then via the Sun/Mirror said to the public that the Tories had no vision. This stuck. Funny actually as the Tory vision was almost identical to New Labour, at least in economic policy. Why didnt the people get a chance to choose original flavour over new improved, because the media told you 'Tories have no policy' and the sheep beleived it. Actually they had a vision then as now, but rather than being able to capitalise on the largest U-turn in modern western political history they had to 'accept' the new status you describe, simply though as gross imbalance of printspace and airtime. This has turned full circle now, New Tory is now mirroring New Labour and after the next general election will likely seize the same ground and make the same claims.
New Tory stinks for the same reasons New Labour does and I am not happy with it. Cameron will be a disaster because what we need is a government that will undo New Labour, not seal it.

reds8n wrote:
Blair and Clinton got on like a house on fire, and despite Cherie's best efforts, it seems that Blair and Lil' Bush are genuine friends as well.

Sure Blair gave Bush and Clinton a lot generally on the return of 'support me, not Britain'. Iraq most of all. Britain got veery little for a whole lot of support, Blair didnt even get Britiah goods though trade tarrif rises at the turn of the century, the French managed it. this was because to Blair all he wanted was support for New Labour, not for the UK. This was most pointient when during the 2001 election the Conservative leader was not granted audience with the president. Even vocally anti-American and unelectable leaders such as Michael Foot were treated with in Washington. Hague wasnt, this was alarming in that the US 'special relationship' was now with Labour, not the government per se.

reds8n wrote:
.... or more pertinently the Labour Party over Cameron and his bunch of toffs and second chancers every time.

Bunch of toffs? Do you actually realise where most of New Labour come from, public school education. Yes, hero of the people Blair included. Not that that is a problem IMHO, but I just love the ignorant class war angle trotted out time and again. Especially just after a minister or labour MP speaks about abolishing the private schools, but ignoring comment on where they send their kids.

If you want to find the real snoots in Westminster and having known people there I can tell you: if you meet someone who looks down on you as a social inferior nine times out of ten you have a New Labour life peer. You should especially read what the Mirror says about 'Lord Mandy', after all their equality posturing they are happy to say that Mandleson as a peer is too mighty and need not answer his critics. It wasnt printed as a joke. I just wished I had saved the article.
I have a lovely story about Mandy and some fellow peers, but it is one of those I sadly cannot repeat. However whatever I have to say about him Prescott is a hundred times worse. At least the Tories never claimed to be for the masses, Prescott is one of the worst bullies and cases of pull-the-ladder-up-after-him we have seen in British politics for a long time.

From someone who knows plenty of Tories there are definately bad ones, self serving ones etc, same as any party. I can think of names and faces I could not trust, but many of them are from common stiock and there is far les snobbery about it than is suggested by the critics. Thatcher for example was from fairly humble beginnings. If you think you need to be a noble or business tycoon to rise in the Tory party guess again.

Really to accused and hate the Tories of being all toffs, or just hate the ones who rerally are from gentry families is a form of racism. 'You are only discriminating against one because one is white.' Its as political standpoint as anti any other people grouping. Would you tolerate say keep Geordies out of parliament, or Scoursers, or 'Pakis'? No. So why must 'toffs' go, and also why only Tory ones and not salt of the Earth New Labour or Lib Dem ones. they certainly do exist and as a higher proportion in those parties than is evident in the community.

The political situation in the UK seems really very demoralising, same as over here.

Orlanth wrote:

reds8n wrote:
Not least for the 19 or so standing ovations he got during his speech.

Out of a sense of diplomatic conduct anyone invited to addres a joint session is hardly going to be booed.

Big difference between not being booed and getting 19 standing ovations. Thatcher never got that.

Hell, Churchill never got that.

reds8n wrote:
You'll notice the American embassy also quickly put out statements denying any snub and emphasising the "special relationship" as being as strong as usual.

Likewise, but the cooling was noticed by the press nonetheless.

No, the rightwing press noted it, the rest of the press said it went down well.

reds8n wrote:
That's an interesting take.

Like the fact that they've already met.

Not truly relevant, Obama wasnt president then, uust as Obama's meetings with Brown prior to his election are not relevant. You play the diplomatic game.

25 DVD's that he couldn't view? ROFLBBQMAO!

reds8n wrote:

Big difference between not being booed and getting 19 standing ovations. Thatcher never got that.

Hell, Churchill never got that.

Indeed so Brown is greater in the eyes of the US Congress than Thatcher or Churchill. Ok you beleive that if you like, want to buy a bridge?

reds8n wrote:
No, the rightwing press noted it, the rest of the press said it went down well.

Er no. the Guardian said it went down well. the rest said otherwise. I havent got to what the Mirror said, it probably supported the Guardian. The Canadian press considered it a snub. In fact if you Google News Brown visit Obama virutally all press coverasge called it a snub.

Let us tally off some headlines:

Obama's Washington week: Where's the Gordon Brown snub? - LA times doesnt see one.
Obama at least didn't treat Brown like a lame duck - Almost not snubby from the Guardian.

then

No Way To Treat A Prime Minister - Human events
Farewell to Britain - Canada Free Press
The US and Britain—What “Special Relationship”? - The Trumpet

I could go on and on on these.
Telegraph has some nice ones. of course we are talking UK Tory press now so you can ignore them. i would like to see how Mirror defended Brown, but it looks like they want the issue to just go away. Some bad storiesyou just cannot wriggle out of and just have to ignore.

reds8n wrote:
Everyman and his dog knew he was going to be bar a miracle. And Obama's opinion is right too, Cameron is a lightweight. And it is relevant. And I note in your carefully constructed rant you claimed they'd never met. They have. You lied.

Ok. There is an English comprehension test. Copy paste the "lie" in your reply. Where did I say Obama and Cameron never met?

Also in politics you treat with BOTH SIDES

Here is McCain meeting Gordon Brown in Downing street.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7305731.stm

I dont think (or I least I hope) Gordo didnt think McCain and obvious loser and tell him to 'off it chum'. This is not how diplomacy works, a long word for you to look up.

reds8n wrote:
Anyone is worth talking to. But there's a difference between talking to and listening to.

The muppet factor is strong in this comment.

reds8n wrote:
Crap. It's nothing to do wit "media imbalance", that's just more of your typical rightwing BS, little mroe than lamenting over and over again "nobody understands us".

Er New Labout took the Tory economic policy and ditches Socialism. this was a major score win in any political situation. Due to the sun defection and rampant imbalance in the BBC in particular this point was never raised. In politics a U turn is a sweeping scoop for the party opposite the U-Turning. tories didnt capitalise bacuse they couldnt capitalise. The main reason for this was the repeat mantra 'Tory sleaze'.

True there were dirty tories just like there are dirty poltiicians in every party. But the microscope was never bigger than in the Major government years. I remember a recent commonet by Martin Bell, who took a seat as a in independant from one such Tory. He waid that sleaze is a million times worse under New Labour. We dont see it because a lot gets dumped under official secrets, even the stuff that does reach the surface is not handled with the same measure in the press. Cash for questions caught a dodgy Tory MP and tarnished the party. casdh for Peerrages, a hundred times worst (likely underestimate) was a minor scandal. Press volume press volume press volume.

reds8n wrote:
The Tory party has been split over what to do with in Europe for the best part of 2 decaes now, and it continues to be an issue even when they select members of the shadow cabinet. Divisons over this have led directly to the failure of Hague's leadership, the end of Portillo's career, and the career suicide of Duncan Smith. Headles chickens have had more direction than the tories prior to Cameron, who, to his credit, has at least partialy got the party focused.

You any idea how many Eurosceptics are in Labour? Quite a few I assure you, but the whip is strong and euroscepetic Labour gets not air coverage. rebel Labour MPs dont get on BBC, they are not newsworthy say the BBC news boesses as directed by BBC head office bosses as directed by Labour party. Wake up and smell the propoganda. scandals are for tories. Got a rebel Tory MP give him lots of coverage, look how fractured they are, got a rebel Labour sound comes off. Besides only the Lib Dems have a united front on Europe, if you compared Lib Dems you would have had me.

reds8n wrote:
And all intelligent political discussion realises that, rightly or wrongly, the grand European project is going ahead and is the future. Washinton is very aware of this, seemingly far more so than the "bring back Thatcher" rabble with their heads stuck in the sand of the tories. That's one of the reasons that Obama found Cameron to be a lightweight, as he, well, let's be generous, don't have a policy of engagement with Europe, something his administration does.

Cameron is a lightweight. But not for any reason you detect. He is there to say little do little and then become Blair Mk3. the Tories are moving to use the identicle media techniques as New Labour, just watch what happens. The civil service is already looking to the new chief, there have been echoes of this in the press.

reds8n wrote:
Thank you for agreeing with me that the Cons' are regarded as a dead force in Washington. Especially amongst Democrats who remember the help they tried to give Bush senior in his election campaign. Karma's a bitch isn't it.

Nope, you thoroughly fail the comprehension test. This was seen on both sides of the Atlantic as something ominous, and it was Bush not Clinton who didnt treat with the Tories in 2001. You might have realised that Clinton wasnt president then. Clinton might not have liked the Tories I dont know, but he received them in the 1997 election campaign, just as he was received in 1996 and 1992 in London.

reds8n wrote:
Brown isn't though. Proper own bootstraps story. And yes, many of the Labour party leadership are from wealthy backgrounds. The Tories even more so. And whilst Blair and co. may have had privileged upbringings, nowhere near as bad as cameron and his fellow toffs at Eton et al. Those Bullingdon pics are a scream. Funny how you never mention those. Guess that's you being a sheep and swallowing the party faithful line.

I dont need to mention them, because I see nothing wrong. Its not where you came from, its how you got there. Someone goes to Eton and becomes a politician good for them. Someone comes from a comp and goes into poltiics good for them too. Its not an issue for most decent thinking people. The Conservative party is not saying exclude the gentry from the political process, new Labour are. The rife hypocrasy you are avoiding to recognise has a term, its called champagne socialism.

reds8n wrote:
Funny how you never mention those.

Again funny how or why you never defend you comment as to why you want to discriminate against the gentry. Why is it bad for such people to be elected to office? Are they the wrong colour, the wrong accent? Are you just jealious that they had more than you when you grew up? After all they are a minority group. if you think they are 'all corrupt' or some such nonsense, I wonder if you think same about other blanket groups in the UK.
Come on, I know a few people with noble blood in their veins. Jolly good eggs what what, honest to God thorough toffs. If some that I know wanted to seek a political career tell me straight here and now: What makes them unworthy for office? Come on, don't avoid the issue, why would you discriminate against them on their background even before you have heard a word of policy from them? What is inherently evil or unworthy, about 'toffs'?

So, er I thought Brown was a lefty? Can someone provide an Idiots Guide to Britsh Politics?

Remember, I'm an American so have a short attention span. I need bullet points or you'll lose me.

Ok again allowing for my bias:

The Labour party was 'lefty'
the Conseervative Party was and is 'right wing'

After the 1992 election where Labour narrowly lost the Labour party launched New Labour.

In a nutshell they thought, why not embrace right wing economics with a left wing social policy? A bit like the USA. This is because at in its simplest form, no matter whether Democrats or Republicans get in you get a capitalist state in the USA, you just get more or less of socialism on secondary issues. The USA was a successful model for this dual right wing economic twin party system.

The trouble is how would a hardcore socialist party with a right wing roughly equal to US Democrats and a left wing actual communists cope with such a dramatic shift. The answer was a huge spin campaign and a rebranding under new leadership. This was aided by a gross media imbalance at the time, a very narrow majority for the party in power. And the repeat exposure of corruption amongst some members of the Conservative party.
Doing so allowed New Labour to completely rewrite its economic policy while still embraceing an illusion of 'socialist values'.

however something has to give. The Low taxation, Low corporate taxation and friendly to business policy of New Labour is at loggerheads with the old socialist ethos, which requires huge state investment. Borrowing soared, the gold reserves were sold off as a temporary fix (its a bit like selling the family silver to pay for a party). even so this was not enough of itself:

The answer was fourfold.

1. New Labour did have one honest advantage. It wasn't Old Labour. Old Labour meant high taxation high inflation and huge public spending - true socialist economics. There are advatages to that, but not if you are a capitalist, so they stay away if there is a good chance a socialist party can get in.
With Britain being the first major nation in Europe to have a twin right wing economic system similar to the USA. It was a huge advantage. Tory = good for capitalists, Labour = good for capitalists. Therefore investors cannot lose long term and investment soared under New Labour.

2. New Labour replaced a lot of the socialist dogmas with new ones, in particular political correctness. They also did things old socialist governments talked about but didnt do. like ban fox hunting, and removing most hereditary peers. By delivering on the issues at the heart of labour voters, many of which were impractical and contradictory, they nonethless kept support long enough to completely ditch ther old Labour economic model without upsetting thier own voting block.

3. This was helped by the fact that they changed their voting block form the working classes to the middle classes by stealing the Tory vote. The Unions were bribed to accept the change, one such Trade Unionist leader John Prescott was given enormous, though illusory power, as the new role of Deputy Prtime Minister, a role made just for him and did nothing. It was a way of keeping him out the way. prescott was able to keep the Unions in check because he was the de facto chief of the movement. Morris was titualry head.

It is interesting to note that because of the New Labour betrayal workers have fewer rights now than they used to have any time post WW2. Constructive dismissal and breach of employment services is rife for blue collar workers. Unions can do nothing because their power has gone.
its a so long sucker move. Being fairly right wing I agree the Unions needed to be brought down a peg or two. Thatcher did this, Blair completed the move and went too far. Blue collar workers now, especially in junior positions such as supermaket staff have very few rights. even junior managers feel the pinch now, employers can get away with far more. New Labour went too far, and frankly didnt care.

4. The massive massive media imbalance, that continues to this day. It is fading now, and I suspect that the Sun will cross back to Tory around the next general election.

Now ask sometine for the left wing version. Join the two, you will get a far better mid point than if someone tried to be 'dispassionate'.

Orlanth wrote:

Indeed so Brown is greater in the eyes of the US Congress than Thatcher or Churchill. Ok you beleive that if you like, want to buy a bridge?

Of course I don't think that, I was using simple terms so that you'd understand.

reds8n wrote:
No, the rightwing press noted it, the rest of the press said it went down well.

Er no. the Guardian said it went down well. the rest said otherwise. I havent got to what the Mirror said, it probably supported the Guardian. The Canadian press considered it a snub. In fact if you Google News Brown visit Obama virutally all press coverasge called it a snub.

There are two major political parties in the UK, the Labour and Conservative parties. One or other of these has formed the government since about 1910.

The Conservatives are a bit like your Democrats, but a bit more left-wing since the UK is more collectivist than the USA. (See National Health Service, etc.)

The Labour party used to be a genuinely socialist party. They set up pensions and the National Health Service, and nationalised the car industry, railways and a bunch of other stuff after WW2.

During the long Conservative government of 1979 to 1997, all of these nationalizations were undone, and there was general tinkering with other aspects of socialism such as decoupling pensions from average salary increases, and a reduction in taxation for companies and wealthy individuals.

When the Labour party got back into power in 1997 they managed it by moving to the centre which made them more like the Conservatives. This was called New Labour.

New Labour did nothing to reverse the de-nationalisations (except in some cases where things went badly wrong – the railways and recently the banks.) They also carried on previous Conservative policies such Private-Public-Partnerships and Private Finance Initiatives, and reduced taxation of companies and wealthy individuals.

Since New Labour has held onto power for nearly 12 years – which is the Labour party’s longest ever term of government -- the Conservatives became increasingly desperate to make themselves more electable and have done it by moving to the centre and becoming more like the New Labour party.

There is currently little to distinguish between the New Labour and Conservative parties apart from their attitude to the European Union, where Labour are generally united in favour and the Conservatives have a significant number who are set against it plus a lot who are for it.

Frazzled wrote:So, er I thought Brown was a lefty? Can someone provide an Idiots Guide to Britsh Politics?

Remember, I'm an American so have a short attention span. I need bullet points or you'll lose me.

The big trick is there is no "hard" left or right in mainstream British politics. It's really just whether you're one step to the left of centre or one step to the right.

Any battle over capitalism vs. Socialism was lost by the left a good 15-20 years ago. Capitalism won.

Socially there's no way you could run or propose getting rid of the NHS or other radical right wing ideas. The left won that one.

To an extent this explains the apathy a lot of people have about UK politics, as really we're just arguing over the colour of the ties of the next shower of witches we elect to ridicule and blame when it all goes wrong.

Best description is it's like choosing whether you want death by firing squad or hanging. The end result is the same, but you get a whole load of arguments as to whether or not the gallows is made from sustainable resources, the pollution impact of the bullets and, most importantly of all, who gets to pay for the whole charade.

I am quite shocked, that he GAVE back a statue that we Gave to America.

ARRAN

Edit:

So what are you kilkrazy? Labour or Tory?

Liberal.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So, er I thought Brown was a lefty? Can someone provide an Idiots Guide to Britsh Politics?

Remember, I'm an American so have a short attention span. I need bullet points or you'll lose me.

The big trick is there is no "hard" left or right in mainstream British politics. It's really just whether you're one step to the left of centre or one step to the right.

Any battle over capitalism vs. Socialism was lost by the left a good 15-20 years ago. Capitalism won.

Socially there's no way you could run or propose getting rid of the NHS or other radical right wing ideas. The left won that one.

To an extent this explains the apathy a lot of people have about UK politics, as really we're just arguing over the colour of the ties of the next shower of witches we elect to ridicule and blame when it all goes wrong.

Best description is it's like choosing whether you want death by firing squad or hanging. The end result is the same, but you get a whole load of arguments as to whether or not the gallows is made from sustainable resources, the pollution impact of the bullets and, most importantly of all, who gets to pay for the whole charade.

There are various reasons why people are apathetic about politics.

One is what you say.

Another is that most people have come to realise that what they think or vote has almsot no impact on the way the country is governed, so they see no point in voting.

Local government is a joke in the UK.

However I could argue with the idea about the triumph of capitalism.

Water Companies -- Several of them have returned to public ownership as publicly owned trusts. Most of the rest have been bought by foreign companies.
The Railways -- a huge disaster which had to be re-nationalised to try and get them working again.
De-mutualisation of building societies. Every one of them has gone bust and/or been taken over.
The Banks -- Northern Rock is now 100% nationalised, Lloyds TSB and HBOS are both over 50% nationalised.
PFI has been a disaster for the London Underground. It is also turning into a slow motion disaster for a number of NHS trusts.
Yet another major IT projcet disaster was announced this morning.
The current economic crisis...

I don't think it heralds a return of left wing politics but it certainly doesn't look like a triumph for capitalist principles generally. Whether this is due to a flaw in capitalism or flaws in the UK national make-up I don't know.

True enough, but there's been immense howling and complaints over the buy outs/bail outs, and whilst I would love to see a return to things like utilities, transport networks etc etc the things that a country needs to run at all, return to well ran state controlled 100%, it's a long way off.

There's no serious push or drive for a huge swing to the left, it's much more really a fine tuning of the existing systems and practises-- things like stricter banking regulations.

I think a lot of the problems have really just shown the existing problems in a capitalistic system. Take "Fred the Shred". Prior to the practical collapse of his bank he was regarded as a great guy who excelled at his job. But if you look at what he actually did, this beacon of capitalism, this wealth generator, all he did was buy companies and sack people. He was creating wealth at all, just taking from many people and consolidating it in the hands of a few.

And this, apparently, is progress.... ?

One of Brown's problems, which he inherited from the Conservatives, is regarding banking as a wealth creating industry in its own right. Whereas properly speaking it is a service which consolidates money from investors and makes it available to company management who use it to improve real companies.

reds8n wrote:
Of course I don't think that

So you dont beleive what you put down as an answer. So how was it a credible answer?

reds8n wrote:
And the Independent. And the Mirror.
So roughly half of fleet street thought it went well.

*golf clap*

There was a lot clearly missing from the Independent's coverage. Despite some praise is mentioned that the meeting was 'not warm' in conrrast from the cherry picked comments that any one leader would say to another. If you read betwween the lines on this, as one should with the press you will discover that they are shoring up a bad day.

reds8n wrote:
errmmmmmm "If you want to judge Obamas reactions the the UK wait until he meets David Cameron, the man most likely to be the next Prime Minister."

There. I've underlined it for you. Reading comprehension FTW. YOu do understand what the use of the word "wait" in that means yes ?

Do you understand 'wait'? I can wait for a bus and have been on one before. I can wait to meet my mother and have met her previously. Where does the word wait indicate never having met before?
Ner mind, dont bother sidetracking on this one. I am sure 99% of the rest of Dakka will see what the word wait means, even those for whome English is a second language.

reds8n wrote:
AT least you've spelt that one right. You're getting better. we could also use <link> you'll note I've linked you to a nice rightwing paper so you can feel at home with the same old same old.

I know how to spell, being a writer amongst other things, but my Dakka posts are speed typed and net posts are written dictation and not prose per se. i.e. this is a conversation rather than a correspondence.
When I mispell, and I frequently do, it is because my typing speed is very high and I miss the typos.
You mispell too and I wont criticise you for it.

reds8n wrote:
Yeah, the BBC and labour are well friendly. That's why the Director general was forced to step down by... err.. the govt. Good argument.

One event. look at the wealth of BBC reporting against that. BBC reporting news circa 1995.
- Crisis, New Labour spokesman interviewed, Government spokensmen interviewed, last word given to New Labour spokesmena, pro New Labour final word ' the government cant get out of this one'.
BBC reporting news post 1997.
- Crisis, Opposed spokesman interviewed (often not from the opposition) Government spokesman interviewed, pro New Labour final word 'how will the government get out of this one.'

In cicular debates in many political discussions in the news studio a government and an independent spokesman would be invited but not an opposition spokesman. Look at the formatting of the news media, it shifted very heavily after 1997.

As for the incident regarding the Director General being forced down. Why was this the case?

(Are you talking about Greg Dyke?)

He was forced out for not obeying the government. In case you hadnt realised the BBC is not supposed to obey the whim of the government it is supposed to be independent. However this is not how New Labour saw it. When finally some high ups decided to grow a pair and try something outside their bonds what happens, they get stomped on. By tyhe time of the Hutton report Blair has been in power too long and did not accept what he considered disobedience.

What you see as proof of the BBC's independence is actually an 'off with his head moment' when the indentured servant dares finally say no.

reds8n wrote:
Yeah, becuase Ken Livingstone. Peter Hain, etc etc have all just disappeared. They never feature in the mdeia at all. Excpte in all the newspaper columns they write and interviews they give.

You will always get a few, besides Ken Livingston was bnig enough Labour had to court him after Dobbo failed to kick him offstage.

reds8n wrote:
Thank you for agreeing with me that the Cons' are regarded as a dead force in Washington.

Again, where did I say this?
Hint : I didnt.

reds8n wrote:
No, it is YOU -again who lacks the ability to uderstand what it typed in front of you....

Bush SENIOR I said. Major's team tried to help him get re-elected. That went well, clearly, and Clinton and the DEmocrat's have been aware of this ever since. You're quite correct that when lil Bush was running he, or his election team, twgged that the Tories were of no use whatsoever as they wouldn't be in power.

I understand about Bush 1198 campaign and some comments from Conservative central office which helped him. This was a bad call. but Clinton saw past that and dealt with John Major from 1992. Even though he did get on better with Blair, and likely for that reason.

reds8n wrote:
You're quite correct that when lil Bush was running he, or his election team, twgged that the Tories were of no use whatsoever as they wouldn't be in power.

I will make this easy for you to understand.

1. You make any primary candidate for Prime Minister or President welcome, no matter if they are likely to win or not.

2. Case in point. McCain was welcomed in London in May 2008 . Didnt you just admit that it was all but certain Obama would win.

3. So by your logic why was McCain given time of day. I will answer for you in case you still dont understand.

4. The answer is because it is standard diplomatic conduct.

Now as a good excample Michael Foot got US diplomatic welcome for the 1983 election, even though he had many offkey political policies from washingtons perspective. Many of his cabinet hated the US. Foot wanted to shift ties to a more friendly stance with Moscow and wanted American troops and nuclear weapons out of the UK. He also had about as much chance as winning as William Hague did. you also admitted as much in your last post.

Michael Foot was welcomed.
William Hague was not, GW Bush jnr refused to see him. This was a favour to Blair.

i.e. New Labour had demanded that the realtionship should be party specific and not with the government of the nation per se. I dont blame the USA for this, Bush got major material concessions out of the UK, tacit agreement on many agendas especially War on terror and Blair did not stand up for British interests in the process. the princetag was very sim ple: support me. I cannot blame America for such a good deal, I would have taken it, anyone would. blair sold us out to look good.

This is why he gets Joint session of Congress opportunity, and why Gordon Brown also got one and the 19 standing ovations. Chuchill and Thatcher had to earn this, many major leaders never got one but Brown gets a free spin, for what exactly. They price we paid by a following Bush no matter what.
Its clear from Obama being half asleep at the time (ignored by the Independent but not by the US press) it shows where he focused his time. It was not on Brown, he wasnt important.
The whole thing makes sense, it also stinks.

reds8n wrote:
I don't want to discriminate against "the gentry", it just auses me no end the way that a few labout upper class sorts are sued as some sort of medium for attcaking the party, whilst a shower of rich ne'er do wells, who have only got to tehir positions through he old boys network is viewed as being commendable or worthy in some fashion.

You're the one raising issues about class and people being snooty.

Hold on, you said what was wrong with the Tory party was that they were toffs. let me get your quote right:

I don't think Brown will ever be popular in the USA-- not charismatic enough-- but Blair will back him, or more pertinently the Labour Party over Cameron and his bunch of toffs and second chancers every time.

First there are planety of toff champagne socialists in new Labour. Secondly, as I ask, why are 'toffs' not fit for office?

Is it because if you come from a gentry family you are a 'rich ne'er do well'? This smacks of plain old bigotry to me. If toff was a colour of skin you wouldn't be allowed to say this. If toff was a sexual preference you would be allowed to say this. If toff was a faith you wouldnt be allowed to say this. Toff is very close to a regional stereotype, like scouser or geordie. If you discriminated against them it would not be allowed either. So stop avoiding the question, why in your opinion are toffs unfit for office?

reds8n wrote:
it just auses me no end the way that a few labout upper class sorts are sued as some sort of medium for attcaking the party,

If I read this right, you are upset because myself and other latching on to the fact that there are toffs in the Labour party offends you while the Conservative party also has plenty and likely a lot more.

This is because Tory roffs and Lib Dem Toffs dont say 'toffs out'.
much of the left wing of ther Labour party has been devoted to this hard facet of socialism.
i admittedly have a lot of respect for Wedgewood Benn, a complete toff, who in following his socialist principles gave up all terappings of toff status including his title and muich of his wealth. He was a true socialist and not a hypocrite.

However ther champagne socialism of do what I say not as I do it very blatant. While hypocrasy is likely with any party, this is a doctrinal hypocrasy that goes very deeply and consistently. People of many parties may choose to abuse or not abuse thier power financially, you get dishonest and honest poltiicians onall sides and roughly equal proportions. However champagne socialism is endemic, the policy is socialist, the practice is far from it. This is never more apparent than with New Labour attitudes and practices on private education. time and again Labout party bigwigs who profess the need rto abolish private shools out of equality send their own children to them.
Defend that if you can.

I wont get started on 'abolish the honours system' but can I have my knighthood first please.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are two major political parties in the UK, the Labour and Conservative parties. One or other of these has formed the government since 1926.

The Conservatives are a bit like your Republicans, but a bit more left-wing since the UK is more collectivist than the USA. (See National Health Service, etc.)

The Labour party used to be a genuinely socialist party. They set up pensions and the National Health Service, and nationalised the car industry, railways and a bunch of other stuff after WW2.

During the long Conservative government of 1979 to 1997, all of these nationalizations were undone, and there was general tinkering with other aspects of socialism such as decoupling pensions from average salary increases, and a reduction in taxation for companies and wealthy individuals.

When the Labour party got back into power in 1997 they managed it by moving to the centre which made them more like the Conservatives. This was called New Labour.

New Labour did nothing to reverse the de-nationalisations (except in some cases where things went badly wrong – the railways and recently the banks.) They also carried on previous Conservative policies such Private-Public-Partnerships and Private Finance Initiatives, and reduced taxation of companies and wealthy individuals.

Since New Labour has held onto power for nearly 12 years – which is the Labour party’s longest ever term of government -- the Conservatives became increasingly desperate to make themselves more electable and have done it by moving to the centre and becoming more like the New Labour party.

There is currently little to distinguish between the New Labour and Conservative parties apart from their attitude to the European Union, where Labour are generally united in favour and the Conservatives have a significant number who are set against it plus a lot who are for it.

Fixed in two points - but not to change the political tone of the opinion.

The big trick is there is no "hard" left or right in mainstream British politics. It's really just whether you're one step to the left of centre or one step to the right.

- True. But for completion there are left/right extremist parties. the hard right xconsists of the British National party and the National Front. You could argue UKIP in this, but they are more accurately Tory right with strong anti -european agenda than true 'hard right'. There is a Communist party in the UK. However the only active participant in maintream is the 'communist' press. The Morning Star is alive well and still selling on the mainstreet.

Any battle over capitalism vs. Socialism was lost by the left a good 15-20 years ago. Capitalism won.

- Yes, more or less, but you can narrow irt down further than that. The battle was declared over after the 1992 election with the birth of New Labour, but it was lost with the conclusion of ther Miners Strike in 1985.

Socially there's no way you could run or propose getting rid of the NHS or other radical right wing ideas. The left won that one.

- Agreed. It is not Conservative policy to abolish the NHS, for a start it would not be political survivable. It is a poular scare tactic to claim such though. NHS reform is a hot policy of all three major parties.

To an extent this explains the apathy a lot of people have about UK politics, as really we're just arguing over the colour of the ties of the next shower of witches we elect to ridicule and blame when it all goes wrong.

- My reason to comment. in this we finally make full agreement. this is especially true with the rebirth of New Tory in 2005. at this current time New Tory and New Labour are pretty much identicle. Who wins will be a matter of incumbency vs state of the nations economy and a lot of spin. Expect a very dirty campaign in 2010.

Best description is it's like choosing whether you want death by firing squad or hanging. The end result is the same, but you get a whole load of arguments as to whether or not the gallows is made from sustainable resources, the pollution impact of the bullets and, most importantly of all, who gets to pay for the whole charade.

- This is where the Liberal Democrat party, the third party in UK politics has a very good chance of making headway. But prior to this they must spin up a new identity too.
it wont consitute a chage per se, but it qwill manufacture the illusion of progress that Tony Blair successfully used to hoodwink the populace.

I appreciate the spirited discussion. I do not have a lot of knowledge regarding your political parties and this has been an interesting lesson in what the "average joe" thinks. Keep it up. The main goal of mine in starting this thread was to have a greater understanding (regarding politics that is). I guess another point of interest of mine was what you think of your healthcare system is like. Since we are apparently moving to a national healthcare system I would like to know what we can begin to expect.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So, er I thought Brown was a lefty? Can someone provide an Idiots Guide to Britsh Politics?

Remember, I'm an American so have a short attention span. I need bullet points or you'll lose me.

The big trick is there is no "hard" left or right in mainstream British politics. It's really just whether you're one step to the left of centre or one step to the right.

Any battle over capitalism vs. Socialism was lost by the left a good 15-20 years ago. Capitalism won.

Socially there's no way you could run or propose getting rid of the NHS or other radical right wing ideas. The left won that one.

To an extent this explains the apathy a lot of people have about UK politics, as really we're just arguing over the colour of the ties of the next shower of witches we elect to ridicule and blame when it all goes wrong.
.

Danger Will Robinson! Socialism Vs Capitalism? Capitalism won? I appreciate he wanted bullet points but this isn't year 9 citizenship and political science 101.

The NHS is a political hot potato because free health care at the point of use is so ingrained in our society that everyone would squeal rather than give it up. *That* was Labour's masterstroke from the past 60 years. But do you have any idea where the party that gave birth to this lumbering monster is going with it? With an ageing population (more illnesses, less taxes) the NHS cannot survive in its current incarnation. Mark my words, we'll all be paying more for our health care in years to come. Either that or move to Scotland. I say, jings!

Kilkrazy wrote:One of Brown's problems, which he inherited from the Conservatives, is regarding banking as a wealth creating industry in its own right.

Not fair for any party, Labour or Conservative. Also this problem is not confined to the banking industry. The UK has a persistent economic flaw which no party has addressed: Infrastructure profitability.
Essentially this means when you try to make a profit out of the infrastructure it is a profit every person and business has to take account of.

I will use an example outside banking if you dont mind for clarity, but what I say here applies to interest rates too. If you live in Berlin and take public transport you travel on subsidised transport that is provided at minimum cost. This minimum cost therefore cuts the cost of living for Berliners, visitors to Berlin and businesses there. Hence they are all a little bit richer. the extra money circulates all around, into business and quality of life. If you live in England you have to pay for the operating profit of the line, prices are higher thus cost of living goes up, business is more expensive and so on.
Now this doesnt mean the solution is 'nationalisation'. Because nationalisation even with subsidies doesnt change the doctrine of thinking. Nationalised infrastructures end up costing more than infrastructure on the free market. the deficit has to be found in taxation which incurs bureaucratic costs and so forth. The Uk has never grasped the doctrine of subtle thinking of the continent by which infrastructure is provided wuith as little bureaucracy or waste or control as possible, to get it working and at minimum price. This is why in a nutshell you can have well working clear nationalised utilities and public transport in the continent but only labyrinthine bureaucratic and horribly inefficient nationalised utilities and industries in the UK.

Now holding that logic transport it back to banking. A part of the current rot was endemic to the business attitude of the UK, see transport above. Some is due to importing management techniques from the USA which again has a different cultural background and don't easily apply to the UK. In this case target based management. Target based management works in a vibrant expansive and resource heavy democracy like the UK, it also fits the base culture of the American. In the compactness of the UK and with our differences in domestic outlook this breaks down.
To simplify (there is more to it than this, but it will do for now) you can push targets in the US because you can expand into the room inherent in the nation. To push a target in the UK something has to give as all resources are already parcelled out. Thus new unexplored niches work - note how the UK excels in cutting edge niche industry. Particularly R&D (50% of global patents today are connected in some form to UK designers).

Now the banks: you have target based management now, and also same for businesses throughout the nation. This has just pressed the accelerator on the greed pedal. Profitability soars so companies think things are going ok. I have points on New Labour poor input here, but I will keep this one neutral, also the Tories did not graps the dangers either. 'Poor' managers fall behind target reaching managers, and corners are cut to make even higher targets. Business policy becmes shorter and shorter term, because you must make targets or look crap so you are constantly thinking only of ther now.

Though it is bad enough bonus culture now steps in. Bonuses have always been a factor of business, but not on this scale, bonuses are considered a way of encouragement of target culture, which looks successful. Now what we really needed was for development to take priorirty and target culture to be disolves, not accelerated. Now in the USA bonuses like targets work, been a factor since the 50's in major business and stem in some business back to the turn of the 20th century. Bonuses also follow their own retention culture, this is where the trap really lies. America has a migratory economy, part of the reason for that is because of how easy it is to hire and fire, and how much easier it is to get a new job again speaking about the macro economy here, lower transport costs (despite differences) and ability to find new liivng acconmodation elsewhere - some city centres excepted, but those migrating fro metrolpolis to metropiolis tend to be higher earners and it is not a factor. The Uk is not like that, businesses were more feudal, you joined, you stayed, you retired. This worked better on a denser small and more resource strapped nation. Targets however are a retention bonus, so the culture of migration sets in, businessmen float betweeen businesses flouting their target successes for a new and better contract.

Without business loyalty there is now little reason to think long term, instant targets means instant reaults which means instant assets. In come the bank, which also have a target orientated culture and a maigratiory business leadership. How about a loan? Wham, bankers are making instant money via commission, businesses are making instant targets and the economy looks good. This unto a point still worked in the USA until large frauds or poor debts come along and cause a paperchain of called in debts. In the UK the disaster had already happened, a well established economic base had been liquified for a profit now heavy service corps with nothing to service. The rot began in the 90's and was only holding out due to illusory money for as long as the frauds and bad debts did not take toll in the USA. That triggered a collapse that had already happened but had been kept out of the 'real' economy by a paperchain of revolving credit.